ElectionAnalysis.com
Archive: 03/20/2004

But most troubling is an audio tape released by FOX News in which Clarke says things which are completely contradictory to both his book and the 60 minutes interview. And adding further damage to Clarke's believability is that it has been charged by members of congress that Clarke also gave sworn testimony before a closed session in 2002 which is contradictory to his sworn testimony before the 911 commission. If this latter charge is proven true, Clarke may find himself the subject of a perjury prosecution.

Speaking in a recorded press briefing in 2002, when he had nothing to gain from lying, and no financial stake, Clarke relates to the assembled press the truth about what President Bush is doing regarding terrorism- namely vastly increasing the assets devoted to counter-terrorism and shifting the focus from rollback Al Qaeda to elimination of Al Qaeda! Later that year he testifies before congress in closed session, and according to reports, he again praises the Bush administration for it's terrorism fighting efforts, and this time under oath.

Now…… fast forward 18 months to 2004. Clarke has left the administration a very disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind against President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. He has been demoted by Rice to "Cyber-Security". He has been refused a highly coveted job as the number two Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Bush. He is embittered. He is very angry, and has the perfect plan for revenge, the classic "tell-all" book so often seen by former employees determined to get even.

So what happens? He writes a potentially lucrative book, with a huge financial stake for him and for CBS, owned by the same company as Clake's publisher. He goes on a CBS "news" show, which "forgets" to mention they have a financial stake in his book, and they give him an unheard of 2 segments to promote his book and it's scurrilous charges. The interviewer, Leslie Stahl, acts more like Clarke's manager than a journalist, and never asks one single probing question about his proof, his agenda, why he left the administration or anything which would cast the slightest doubt on what he was saying. It was a disgraceful display of journalistic bias.

Since that time, other media outlets such as CNN, MS-NBC, The LA Times, The New York Times, etc. have picked up the story, and with obvious bias are treating Clarke's tainted, self-serving pronouncements as gospel. They have abandon any semblance of balance, journalistic ethics or fairness by utterly ignoring or even suppressing the facts about Clarke's own contradictory statements and financial gain from his notoriety.

In a second act of incredible arrogance, "60 Minutes" hosted Condoleezza Rice on it's March 28th program, where she was grilled on the Clarke charges like a defendant in a murder trial, in direct contrast to the love fest shown to Clarke the week before. Not surprisingly, "60 Minutes" gave her only one segment and AGAIN failed to mention their financial interest in Clarke's book.

It has been a shameful display. Not only Clarke's willingness to change his stripes and perjure himself for financial gain, for he now appears a bitter, petty man seeking revenge and to make a buck. The real shame is that a once respected media have become willing accomplices in presenting false and misleading propaganda. This is not only a shame, but it is terribly damaging to our country, where once news agencies were watchdogs of society, but have now become willing instruments of political bias, personal destruction, outright lies, and the further erosion of values and culture in America. It is another sad day. Of so-called "news" agencies such as CNN, LA Times and CBS, Joseph Goebbels would be very proud.

Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent.
Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Considering these things, it is no wonder Clarke is a rich man. Now was the most opportune time for him to publish. A few months earlier or later and his book might have been missed almost entirely. Clarke's choice of publishing has both advantages and drawbacks. Advantage: Many people hear what he has to say and the book may help people think carefully before casting their votes this November. Disadvantage: Many people may infer that he is publishing mostly for political and/or financial profit. It's important to note that some of the things he says in his book and on television are much more severe than things he told the commission while under oath.

Clarke's book repeatedly attacks Bush for being slow to address the terrorism threat. He also said that the Bush administration continued the same policy that the Clinton administration had in place, and even created its own improved and more aggressive policy, embracing many of Clarke's suggestions. He also admitted that even had many of his recommendations been implemented prior to 9/11, they probably wouldn't have stopped it. Perhaps most importantly is that these changes were in the last stages of approval when the attacks came. Unfortunately, all this happened at a time when the level of threatening intelligence was unusually high.

Clarke states that the Bush administration acted very slowly in an urgent situation. This was the biggest pre-9/11 mistake made by the Bush administration. The Bush administration did little to address the urgency of the situation, even while daily briefings spoke to the contrary. Responsibility falls on the Bush administration for not taking enough appropriate action. But, then again, hindsight is usually 20-20. Remember - Clarke admitted that even if many more steps had been taken, they probably wouldn't have been enough to stop the attacks.

"Against All Enemies" mostly attacks Bush about the Iraq war. According to Clarke "... by invading Iraq the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism." This may be at least partially true, especially when one considers the short-term only. The U.S. led invasion of Iraq has created a lot of anti-American sentiment around the world and, in some ways, even fed right into the propaganda that terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda circulate.

Did the war in Iraq compromise the war on terrorism? In the short term: likely. In the long term: We'll see. Perhaps a change in environment with the opportunity for equality and distributed wealth is necessary for long term fundamental change in the Middle East. It is therefore imperative that this experiment be carried out with the utmost care and followed through to its ultimate conclusion. Bush may have weakened the war on terrorism in the short term, but also may have created the possibility of a far greater victory.

Bravo, Mr. Clarke. Bravo for potentially taking the responsibility to not let fervor and half-truths dominate this presidential election. Bravo for trying to end a campaign that may have been trying to set the current president squarely on the backs of the 9/11 victims for personal benefit. Bravo for letting United States citizenry know your view of the kind of man George W. Bush really is before they rush to re-elect him in the 2004 election.

Just after the 9/11 attacks, this country moved with a swiftness of decision and action that rivaled the deployment of American forces post-Pearl Harbor. The most ardent opponents and most fervent advocates all flocked to Bush’s plan to find and destroy the terrorist threat that would so blatantly attack the U.S. on its own soil. None objected and the terrorist threat was cast into near oblivion.

Then, out of what might be described as sheer petulance, the president appeared—as did most of his cabinet—dissatisfied with merely Afghanistan and drew his eye upon the other untamed thorn: Iraq. Clarke described his encounters with the president over the subject of Iraq in his “60 Minutes” interview, when he said, “The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.”

As expected, Clarke is being attacked by the republicans for what they’re calling contradictory statements over the course of several commission testimonies at multiple levels. The fact is, Clarke testified at different times with different information because the information was, well, different. Just as with Blix, UN weapons inspector, Clarke was forced to reevaluate his position based on new information. And also, it must be assumed, on conclusions that are invariably drawn as events progress.

As with all things, what is one day the solid truth may turn out the next to be an utter falsehood, and all based on the impropriety of information upon which the conclusions were originally based. Meaning, if a beginning truth is proven untrue and/or unlikely—i.e. the al Qaeda/Iraq connection—the subsequent truths must be treated as untenable. Much thanks to the character of Richard Clarke for stepping outside the box of acceptable behavior and providing the American public with a much needed reality check.